/biz/ - Business & Finance

bitcoin CRASH

>non mining nodes secure the network

>>9088184
>I don't understand the purpose of nodes

>>9088184
Vitalik confirmed this even though he was loyal to cashies.

Doesn't Lightning Network centralise Bitcoin as well? It would be okay if LN is more centralised as long as the on chain fees don't go ridiculously high like in December.

>>9088279
They don't, because of:
a) segwit
b) blocksize will likely be increased later if needed

>>9088279
It doesn't centralize Bitcoin. The trade-off is that LN will allow the main chain to remain decentralized, and to have smaller, less valuable txns in payment channels, which *may* be more trusted. Whereas big blocks will change the nature of the blockchain to being more trusted (centralized) for people who cannot afford a full node.

LN preserves the Blockchain, but fees will get higher to replace the mining subsidy.

Big blocks makes the blockchain more trusting of fewer and fewer full nodes as the blocksize increases. Additionally it will require periodic hardforks, which is politics and chaos waiting to happen.

>>9088209
>uga booga more nodes make bicon secure

>>9088154
Evidently you've never read his white paper or much of his posts then

>>9088448
I have read that he wished for anyone with a computer to have incentive to mine bitcoins.

>>9088262
he refers to full nodes ie mining nodes. non miners have no power over the mainchain; shure they can reject blocks but only the longest chain in valid

>>9088465
that's a bit late since mining hardware costs more than a computer nowadays

>>9088515
and big blocks exasperate that problem even further

>>9088154
You're a central banker and your job is to control the money supply and thereby manage the economy.
A wild decentralised cash appears, with supply parameters which you are not able to tamper with, and the infrastructure of which you are unable to target as it is globally distributed.
Do you;
A) Get one of the largest insurance companies in the world whose chairman was also a member of the Bildeberg group to throw a little cash into a venture designed to paralyse the spread of the new currency by permanently limiting the decentralised throughput of the ledger to less than a fax machine, and channelling the energy from the movement into a necessarily restricted routed architecture into which you can neatly slot your captured retail banks and re-apply absolute control.
B) Allow it to spread out of control, encourage it to grow bigger in the hopes that the infrastructure you're already completely unable to target will somehow become weaker so that you can then leverage the increased scale of the operation to take it down, amidst widespread worldwide outrage when it becomes obvious to all and sundry that's what you're trying to do?
If you chose B, you have no idea what the fuck you're doing.
It doesn't matter though, because neither of them will work, core is doomed, that's how things actually are, and all the assmad whining in the world won't make the tiniest amount of difference to this fact.